An attack devoid of facts

Our opinion: New attack ads that misrepresent a proposed abortion law in New York are an assault on women’s rights and the notion of honest debate.

Using inflammatory rhetoric to deliberately misrepresent the facts is a common way to win a political fight or take down a campaign opponent.

That’s just what the Chiaroscuro PAC, the political arm of the anti-abortion Chiaroscuro Foundation, is doing with a new series of radio ads attacking three state senators who are seeking re-election. The first-term senators, all Democrats and all seen as vulnerable, are Cecilia Tkaczyk of Duanesburg, Terry Gipson of Poughkeepsie, and Ted O’Brien of Rochester. Their defeat is crucial to Republican efforts to retain the GOP’s tenuous control of the state Senate.

That’s politics, of course. Unfortunately, women’s rights are caught in the middle of this battle, at the expense of the truth.

The incendiary bomb being used against the three by the Chiaroscuro group is an outrageously incorrect depiction of the New York Reproductive Health Act, a long debated bill that would codify abortion rights in state law. Supporters see RHA as a way to ensure New York women access to abortion services, should federal court decisions like Roe vs. Wade be weakened or overturned. The battle over the RHA has held up passage of a broader Women’s Equality Act.

A radio ad attacking the senators’ support of the RHA takes aim at a provision to extend late-term abortion protections for physicians, which already exist in federal law, to state law. The ads portray a fetus speaking from the womb, talking about being born within a week. Another voice then describes the RHA as “a bill allowing abortions right up until birth for virtually any reason” and asks, “Do we really need more abortions at nine months?”

In 1970, New York legalized abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, as the U.S. Supreme Court did three years later. Both allowed for the procedure in the third trimester to save the mother’s life. The RHA simply clarifies and updates New York’s law by allowing the mother’s health to also be considered, and transferring abortion regulations from the penal code to the health code, a move proponents say would better protect patient privacy and withstand legal challenges. This comes at a time when at a time when many other states and Congress are passing or considering measures aimed at reducing abortions by limiting women’s access to services.

This is hardly the first time exaggerations and falsehoods have been employed in the heated debate over the RHA, or anything to do with a woman’s right to abortion. Another example: Even though the RHA’s language reinforces a medical provider’s right to refuse to perform abortions, some opponents have suggested that if it passes, Catholic affiliated hospitals and health facilities could be coerced into providing abortions. It’s not true.

It’s one thing for Republicans and their allies to fight for control of the Senate. It’s quite another thing to abuse women’s rights and the truth in their quest for power.

9 Responses

Using inflammatory rhetoric to deliberately misrepresent the facts is a common way to win a political fight or take down a campaign opponent.

That’s just what the TU Editor PAC, the political arm of the pro abortion democrat party, is doing when it calls opponents of their progressive sacrament – abortion – as incendiary bomb throwers.

From an incendiary bomb thrower:

It is true that the expressed purpose of the abortion provisions in the “Women’s Equality Act” is to “protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion… as established in Roe v. Wade”. But this bald statement is used by pro-abortion advocates to claim that the bill does nothing more than to “codify existing law”.

In fact, the Governor’s proposal is much more radical, and would expand abortion rights far beyond current federal and state law…It would lock in place an abortion law that is extremely permissive and hostile to any attempt to regulate or restrict the practice in any way.

Nothing new from the right. Exploiting fear and hatred to get people to vote against their own interest, to cause harm to the population so that some rich corporate-sponsored GOP politician can further expand the wealth gap. I doubt any of the GOP candidates running against these incumbents really believe or care about any of the things expressed in these ads, but they will take advantage of it if it means stupid people will vote for them.

Isn’t it funny how no one cares about the rights of the unborn. Listen to any young, expectant, responsible, mother. They will talk about how the baby is the size of a golfball, then a lemon, then an orange……and on and on. Life begins at conception – according to science and medical professionals.

Now if you want to have an abortion that is your business, but at least acknowledge the fact you are ending a life.

Charlie – the government has absolutely no right to control what goes on inside a woman’s body. It is her business, not yours, and not the government. If you want to equate a mass of fertilized cells to as a fully grown and developed human being you certainly have that right – however, nowhere in the constitution will you find any amendment that says the government has the right to extend it’s control over body. They can regulate what you eat, drink, but the long arm of the government ends at skin level, everything underneath that is mine and no one else’s.

Considering how much you support government control, you must be a socialist.

Jango @ 31. – except that, if nature is allowed to run its course, i.e., it is not interfered with by man, that “mass of fertilized cells” will indeed become “a fully grown and developed human being” – the only way it won’t is if it is killed off by man – as in when one person does not allow nature to run its course but, rather, interferes with nature with regard to another person by taking that person’s life.

“…allowing the mother’s health to also be considered…” – Choose your doctor wisely and that’s a loophole you can drive a truck through.

“… Catholic affiliated hospitals and health facilities could be coerced into providing abortions. It’s not true.” – I believe the TU Editorial Board is no more capable of accurately predicting the future than anyone else – you do not know how the courts will decide the matter and they could arrive at such a dictate – you don’t know. Hence, it is a valid concern.

The Times Union Editorial Board finally admits that the WEA would expand abortion in New York State Law. This Board used to call the Abortion Plank in the WEA a “tweak” to State Statute with No Details. What you describe is more than a tweak.

The NYS Senate has passed a bill with 9 of the 10 planks advocating for Women’s Rights and most everyone agrees on those points from all over the political spectrum–the Assembly will not pass it because it does not include abortion. Why not let the Abortion Plank (you call it RHA) of the WEA stand on its own merits and let legislators cast their mark on where they stand on abortion.

Roe v. Wade has been the Law of the Land for 41 years. What is the ATU Editorial Board so afraid of? Do they know some Inside Baseball on the what the US Supreme Court may do? Is the US Supreme Court planning to reconsider Roe v Wade and overturn it? Really? Goodness sakes, if they do know something you can bet the rest of the country wants to know.

Pass the 9 points all agree on and let’s have an honest, robust debate on the abortion/RHA plank. Then, both Republican and Democrat legislators will have to show their hand on this issue.

Scalia and the justice who sexually harassed Anita Hill would certainly vote to limit abortion rights, or overturn Roe V Wade entirely. Roberts has stated he supports restrictions against abortion, Kennedy has also supported some restrictions narrowing Row V. Wade, however, I wouldn’t count on Alito supporting restricting Row V Wade in any significant way.

Roe v Wade has been under attack for years. The recent decision essentially eliminating the buffer zone for the sometimes violent anti-choice protestors is an indication of where their mind is on the topic. If there was one more conservative justice Roe V Wade would likely be overturned.

NYS is right to do what it can to protect women’s bodies from being controlled by the government, turning them into pawns for the Tealiban agenda.